Search linked additions in completed assessment years overturned where no year specific incriminating material was found, deletions restored.

Where assessments for the impugned years were completed and unabated and no incriminating material specific to those years was found during search/requisition, additions or disallowances based on search proceedings cannot be sustained; applying the binding precedent that year specific seized material is required for reassessment, the Tribunal deleted such additions for the two years. The Assessing Officer's apportionment of extrapolated suppressed sales lacked a clear evidentiary link to the impugned years and was rejected; those additions were deleted. Disallowances premised on alleged impermissible payments were also unsustainable in the absence of year specific incriminating material and were deleted. Appeals by the assessee were allowed and Revenue's challenges to the deletions dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether additions/disallowances made in completed/unabated assessment years (AY 2005-06 and AY 2006-07) without any incriminating material found during search/requisition are valid; (ii) Whether the Assessing Officer's apportionment of extrapolated/suppressed sales/receipts to the impugned years (resulting in additions of Rs. 2,08,37,929 for AY 2005-06 and Rs. 15,44,27,160 for AY 2006-07) is sustainable; (iii) Whether disallowance under Section 40A(3)/disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) (amounts of Rs. 6,98,442 and Rs. 70,600 respectively) for the impugned years can be sustained in the absence of incriminating material.

Issue (i): Whether additions/disallowances made in completed/unabated assessment years without incriminating material found during search are legally valid.

Analysis: The Court examined the factual matrix showing that assessments for AY 2005-06 and AY 2006-07 were completed under Section 143(1) and notices under Section 143(2) were not issued within the prescribed time, rendering them unabated/completed assessments. The assessment orders contain no reference to any incriminating material seized or identified in relation to these specific assessment years. The Court applied the binding principle established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (confirming Kabul Chawla) that where no incriminating material with respect to a completed/unabated assessment year is found during search/requisition under Sections 132/132A, the Assessing Officer cannot reassess or make additions for that completed year under Section 153A; only if incriminating material is found qua the specific year can such additions be made. The authorities' orders and parties' submissions on absence of seized material for the impugned years were considered and the Department did not rebut the absence of incriminating material qua those years.

Conclusion: The additions/disallowances made in the completed/unabated assessment years without any incriminating material are not sustainable and are deleted. This conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Assessing Officer's apportionment of extrapolated/suppressed sales/receipts to the impugned years is sustainable.

Analysis: The Tribunal reviewed the Assessing Officer's reliance on diary entries and annexures seized during survey/search and the Special Auditor's extrapolation using Percentage of Completion Method (PCOM). The CIT(A) had found that significant portions of the seized annexures contained debit as well as credit entries, that the seized records predominantly related to years other than the impugned years (notably AY 2007-08 to AY 2009-10), and that the AO had not established a clear link or incriminating material specific to AY 2005-06 and AY 2006-07. The Tribunal observed that the AO's allocations relied on extrapolations and presumptions by the special auditor, lacked corroborative evidence tying the seized material to the impugned years, and had not rebutted the assessee's explanations or the CIT(A)'s findings regarding debits, refunds and project-wise attribution.

Conclusion: The apportionment/additions on account of suppressed sales/extrapolated receipts to AY 2005-06 and AY 2006-07 are not supported by incriminating material specific to those years and are therefore deleted. This conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the disallowance under Section 40A(3)/Section 40(a)(ia) for specified payments is sustainable in the impugned completed/unabated assessment years.

Analysis: The Tribunal considered that the assessment years were completed/unabated and that no incriminating material qua those years was found during the search. The CIT(A) had found that payments by demand draft drawn on deposits were effectively account-payee transactions and deleted the disallowance. Applying the principle from Abhisar Buildwell and the absence of incriminating material specific to the impugned years, the Tribunal found the disallowance unsustainable.

Conclusion: The disallowance under Section 40A(3)/Section 40(a)(ia) is deleted. This conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: In the facts of the present case, the Assessing Officer made additions and disallowances for completed/unabated assessment years without any incriminating material attributable to those years; applying the binding precedent in Abhisar Buildwell (and Kabul Chawla), such additions and disallowances cannot be sustained. The appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the Revenue's appeals are dismissed to the extent they challenge the deletions.

Ratio Decidendi: In completed/unabated assessment years (where assessments under Section 143(1) stand completed and no timely notice under Section 143(2) was issued), an Assessing Officer acting under Section 153A cannot make additions or disallowances for those years in the absence of incriminating material unearthed during search/requisition under Section 132/132A; only if incriminating material specific to the assessment year is found may the AO reassess or make additions for that year.

---